Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.

Competitor Status, Without More, Insufficient for Article III Appellate Jurisdiction

AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 2079178 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019) (Newman, O’Malley, TARANTO) (PTAB) (3 of 5 stars)

Fed Cir dismisses appeal from IPR decision confirming certain Presidio claims, canceling others. AVX lacks Article III standing to appeal. That the Board upheld some of Presidio’s claims, thus imposing an estoppel on AVX against future challenge to those claims, was insufficient to confer constitutional standing per Phigenix, 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The opinion also notes that it remains undetermined whether § 315(e) estoppel would attach to a party that had no right to appeal, and the Court does not address that issue here.

The opinion also rejects AVX’s attempt to invoke “competitor standing” as supporting constitutional standing. The opinion discusses how, while competitors have been held to have standing to challenge certain government actions, that doctrine does not carry over to the context of IPR appeals, noting, “AVX has no present or nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct even arguably covered by the patent claims at issue.” Op. at 9. AVX had not identified any product (or potential product), at any stage of development, that Presidio’s patent might implicate. The opinion discusses authority in this area, including Phigenix, 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and Momenta, 915 F.3d 764 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and JTEKT, 898 F.3d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

KEYWORDS: INTER PARTES REVIEW; STANDING; ARTICLE III; APPELLATE JURISDICTION